Although Donald Trump had good inclinations on some foreign policy issues during
his campaign and transition period – for example, staying out of unneeded
brushfire wars, reexamining U.S. alliances, and pushing wealthy allies to do
more for their own security – his policy toward “radical Islamic terrorism”
always needed some work.

Now, having been president for only a short time, this policy – including
slamming the door shut on the legal immigration of refugees (including desperate
Syrians fleeing from the country’s civil war) and entry of people from
seven predominantly Muslim countries – needs a lot of work.

In the meantime, to show that he is doing at least something for Syrian refugees,
he is talking to Arab allies not affected by the ban – Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates – about setting up safe zones in Syria to keep
refugees there.

Trump somehow believes that such tough policies will prevent Middle Eastern
terrorists from attacking the United States. Yet refugees coming to the United
States are already vetted thoroughly, and an average American citizen’s
chances of ever getting killed by a “refugee-gone-wild” is very remote.
In fact, the radical ISIS group has had little luck recruiting people to come
to America to attack, thus requiring the group to rely on “inspiring”
untrained people already here to conduct largely incompetent, amateurish attacks.

Therefore, one must conclude that the security gains from this ill-conceived,
chaotic, and likely illegal and unconstitutional executive order (the US Constitution
says that only Congress, not the president, will establish a uniform rule on
naturalization). On the other hand, such demagoguery allows the President to
throw political red meat to his populist base by fulfilling a campaign promise.

Because that promise was originally advertised as advocating a “total
and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and now covers
seven predominantly Muslim countries while giving preference to Christians and
other minority religions in Muslim nations, the Islamic world can be forgiven
for assuming he is accelerating the American post-9/11 “war on Islam.”

And although Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama claimed they were not
conducting such a wide war, they were both attacking or bombing at least seven
Muslim countries. These wars continue to this day and roughly coincide with
the seven Muslim nations covered by the immigration ban, including Iraq, a US
ally in the fight against ISIS.

Because the United States depends on Muslims worldwide to get information,
ground forces, and other assistance to use against the small percentage of radical
Islamist terrorists, this immigration ban will probably prove as disastrous
as US torture at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons did to the “war
on terror.” Trump has made noises about bringing back such practices abhorrent
to American values.

A Macho Image

Trump has a macho image, which his loyal followers eagerly gobble up, yet seems
so scared of the remote probability that an already comprehensively vetted refugee
will misbehave.

Shouldn’t America instead be courageous and say that we’ll take the
(very low) risk to help people desperately fleeing turmoil in countries, including
those that happen to be largely Muslim, such as Syria? For most of our history,
welcoming immigrants has been seared into the American identity, and we even
think of ourselves as “a nation of immigrants.”

However, Trump could be initiating another one of the periodic dark periods
in which immigrants were treated very badly. For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
for political gains, turned away a ship full of persecuted Jews during the Holocaust,
refused to increase immigration quotas for such Jews during that horrible period,
and threw Japanese residents, and even Japanese-Americans, into concentration
camps during the same period. The indefinite ban on desperate Syrian refugees
may very well become a similar stain on America’s legacy.

And a “safe zone” created in Syria will not make up for it. The underlying
message is “keep those undesirable Muslims over there, not accept them
here.” Besides, a safe zone may require the United States to get sucked
into escalating the type of brushfire war that Trump, in the campaign, said
he wanted to avoid. Setting up a safe zone could very well require the insertion
of US ground forces and the tangle of American air forces with those of nuclear-armed
Russia.

Thus, Trump’s is the opposite of a sensible policy, which would be: Increase
the amount of already thoroughly vetted Syrian and other refugees accepted into
the United States and forget about creating a safe zone in Syria, which is much
riskier for the United States than admitting some more refugees.

Using American armed force in Islamic countries, such as Syria, in the decades
since World War II and getting the reputation for treating Muslims unfairly
is the main reason the United States and its Western allies are targets of Islamist
terrorist attacks, such those on 9/11, in the first place.